Regardless of the whole subscription vs non-subscription, how are you going to use your device arguments, it is total BS that we cannot get Hulu or Netflix in the iPhone and probably the iPad.

I am fine with paying for a show but I already have Satellite and am not fine with paying for the SAME show over and over again.

I think any device with a web browser should be able to access any site available on the web. AND don't tell me it's about flash because it's not. They networks could easily make current content available on a go forward basis without much trouble if they wanted to (which they don't) it's about CONTROL and I hope they all loose their asses eventually a long with all the record company execs!

Your obviously in the small percentage of the high end market and there is nothing wrong with that, but if Apple wants to sell a lot of devices, they need lots of content AND low prices for that content as to make it appear paying $499 or more for a iPad a worthwhile investment.

Apple reminds me a lot of Disney World, you get inside the park and all of a sudden get confronted with little choices, few options and high prices.

Disagree. For all those used to "free TV" this may be a bit of a shock, but you underestimate the size of your so-called "high end market".

We don't just sit around and stare at a bunch of shows. With Apple's system, we can conveniently pick and choose just what we want to watch and not be continually disappointed with having to watch re-runs or having to conform to the studio's broadcast schedule.

This is going to catch on more and more, and we'll end up having a better and more direct effect on studios' decisions for programming.

The iPad is also a totally separate product, and its pricing is reasonable considering its huge potential utility within its new self-created product category.

It's actually not that good of a platform for watching TV, unless that's a secondary reason for buying it. HD is probably not going to be all that necessary on it, considering its screen size and the relatively higher cost of purchase and the longer download/syncing times and higher storage space requirements of HD material.

No it isn't. We have a 40" Toshiba and SD is good enough for us, and HD takes longer to download. But it would be worth it for larger TVs where you can see the detail better.

No it isn't what, outrageous? I'm sincerely happy for you that SD is good enough, but for me, I can clearly see the difference on my 46" 1080p LCD at about 14'. Even with a larger TV, I still think $2.99 per HD episode is too much. Heck, they're trying to sell you a season of House M.D. in HD for $59.99. So let's say that you have 10 season passes, that could be as much as $600. Personally, I have about 20 shows that I have season passes to so even if you go with $39.99 per season per show, that's still about $800. I currently pay about $864/yr. for DirecTV and that gives me access to a lot more that just 20 shows. Though it's true that you can only watch so much TV, it's nice to know that all those other channels are there if I choose to watch them.

Apple has been after this $.99 tv show price point for a long time and I think they are about to get it. This is a completely different offering for those barking from Netflix' corner, it's for the people that don't consume hours of TV per day, but rather the occasional episode they want to take on the go.

People will be much more inclined to download a few episodes per season when they're only $0.99. The added value of HD on the iPad will increase this even further.

Agreed, you guys are just arguing to argue. Most people buying it aren't really going to care about this.

I'm buying it and I care greatly about it playing it HD files from iTunes, as it suddenly makes them that much more valuable. No it isn't the exact dimensions to show it pixel for pixel, but it's damn good, and that's all that matters. A device of that size would not be a usable which is why it isn't, and that's really the end of this discussion.

Much of what you've said makes sense, and I agree there's a huge amount of inconsistencies apparent that don't seem to reconcile very well, IF their efforts are all intended for the iPad. But.... another thing I noticed was that you used the word "Mono". Are you serious, the iPad is mono??? Please say it's not true.

First, I don't know where you came up with me saying the iPAD was MONO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iLuv

It is not true. The iPad will output 5.1 sound. Anything less would be a horrible flaw.

Correct....

Okay lets try and stop this before it gets out of hand... lets look at EXACTLY what I said...

Quote:

Sorry but that's just about as bad as Steve trying to explain why the newest iPod sensation only supports MONO.

Now to break down this complex idea...

What I'm SAYING in the quote above is that Steve trying to sell TV content owners on a subscription service based ON the iPad when it doesn't properly** support the HD format...

CLEARLY 'the newest iPod sensation' was a JOKE since Apple wouldn't actually design an iPod that ONLY did MONO.

A joke... get it? Kinda like trying to sell owners of TV content in the idea of a subscription service based on a device that didn't do HD**.

** I guess we can agree to disagree but if a device doesn't support 720p and 1080i in widescreen then to ME that isn't much of an HD device.

And don't get me wrong... I actually LIKE the iPad and will be buying TWO of them once they field reports come in... but I'm not diluting myself into thinking this is gonna be an device that I will be playing a whole lot of HD content on... and thats OKAY I have lots of other plans for the iPad and its lack of REAL HD support isn't scaring me away.

Since many people get their Internet from cable companies, there is some concern over how the pricing structure will be affected if someone decides to downgrade to basic cable with Internet and pay Apple for the content they no longer buy from the cable company.

If the studios are getting more from the cable providers than they would on iTunes then it could be a losing proposition for them also. To be sure the cable companies are not very happy about Apple's foray into television content delivery, and now with the iPad it will create even more load on their network for less income. Something has got to give.

This is a completely different offering for those barking from Netflix' corner, it's for the people that don't consume hours of TV per day, but rather the occasional episode they want to take on the go.

A little fact that many people might not know about the 'online Netflix' service....

They (Netflix) did NOT go to the studios to get permission to stream the movies that they currently stream... So how on earth are that able to stream them?!?!!? Simple, they get (sublicense) the rights from Starz (a premium movie channel) that had an interesting condition in many of their studio contracts that allowed them to sell redistribution rights to other parties...

I'm not sure what the initial reason for this clause since it seems like its a pretty major concession on behalf of the studios BUT it seems like the Starz loophole is quickly becoming a noose for Netflix Streaming...

Just a random news items that came up when I googled netflix streaming starz...

Looks like the movie studios are beginning to realize that Netflix is racing away with the streaming market, and things are starting to change fast: hot on the heels of Warner forcing Netflix to accept delayed DVD rentals in exchange for better streaming terms, Disney and Starz are reportedly renegotiating their deal, and blocking Netflix is one of the terms. Most new releases on Netflix right now are part of the StarzPlay package, and the studios don't get a cut, since they've already sold those rights to Starz. As we all know, the studios aren't big fans of not getting a cut, so what Disney is trying to do is block Netflix from dealing with Starz and force it to license streaming rights directly -- not the end of the world and certainly not impossible, but a move that has the potential to disrupt service and raise prices. As of right now, things are status quo and no one's talking on the record, but we've got the feeling there's a shakeout coming -- stay tuned.

It's the typical amount most people in the US watch after they come home from work, it's a lot more on the weekends of course, the kids watching cartoons etc. all morning.

Perhaps in other countries the quality and quantity of shows isn't all that great, which leads people to do other things or perhaps they have to work more when they get home because people don't have things like like wash machines, dishwashers, robovac's etc.

A little fact that many people might not know about the 'online Netflix' service....

Quote:

Disney and Starz are reportedly renegotiating their deal, and blocking Netflix is one of the terms. Most new releases on Netflix right now are part of the StarzPlay package, and the studios don't get a cut, since they've already sold those rights to Starz. As we all know, the studios aren't big fans of not getting a cut, so what Disney is trying to do is block Netflix from dealing with Starz and force it to license streaming rights directly -- not the end of the world and certainly not impossible, but a move that has the potential to disrupt service and raise prices. As of right now, things are status quo and no one's talking on the record, but we've got the feeling there's a shakeout coming -- stay tuned.

IMHO, the best plan would be hybrid of both. A subscription would give you unlimited streamed 480p content. Then if you really like something you saw, you'd be able to buy an HD version for archiving for $1.

Okay, stop.... you make it sound like only Disney is having issues with this... Sony (if I'm not mistaken their titles have already been pulled or is that really OLD news that has since been cleared up?), Warner and I'm quite sure the rest are also doing this best to put pressure on Starz and/or Netflix perhaps both to ensure they too get their fair share of the fees Netflix charges for streaming.

If you think Netflix Streaming is going to GROW and/or stay the same price as it is today you're in for a rude awakening I'm afraid. It's a great big ole MONEY GRAB and everyone is trying their best to snatch up however much they can.

And it's NOT just the movie studios... ABC, NBC, CBS. FOX, etc they have all provided their channels to cable at no cost and now ... due to FCC changes maybe ... are ALL socking it to the cable systems especially in the major metropolitan areas...

Cablevision 3M subscribers in NY, NJ and CT (pa?) just got sucker into paying ABC 40 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR for the ability to transmit their networks programming. Yea if you do the math it comes to what $1.00 per subscriber per month... yet you gotta know that we subscribers are gonna PAY and somehow I just know it's gonna be more than a buck more a month.

Time Warner is dealing with similar issues and I'm sure comcast is too...

Just wait till people start pulling the plug and calling it quits... TV just doesn't have the DRAW and HOLD over the US public like it did 10 or 20 years ago.

TV shows are rarely rewatched. People only buy seasons to watch for the first time. Rewatching is more of a movie thing anyway.

How do you explain the great success TV seasons have been on DVD? It's a very popular purchase and while I do own tons of shows (mostly scifi shows) I don't usually go back to them and yet am still drawn and completing my various show collections... "Completist Syndrome" is a big part of it I'd bet...

TV shows are rarely rewatched. People only buy seasons to watch for the first time. Rewatching is more of a movie thing anyway.

Who said anything about seasons? I have mostly a few episodes here and there of many shows. Only the ones that I really like and I do go back and re-watch them. One batch of episodes I re-watch every year. Although I do own the complete series of some 60s sitcoms that I grew up with. Purchasing only the episodes I want at $1 each would be so much more cost-effective than buying DVD box sets, especially considering most shows today don't appeal to me. Even with what I consider the best show on the air today, The Big Bang Theory, I only keep the best five or so episodes per season. Other shows I've watched since their inception like 24, Heroes and Lost just dropped off my radar as soon as I missed an episode this year, that's how uninvolving they've been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spliff monkey

4-5 hours of tv a night? You watch too much tv IMHO.

I used to be like that. But TV is just so bad nowadays that I've fallen to less than an hour a day, and that includes the evening news.

If I could be bothered to spend the time, I'd have no qualms about pulling the TV show of the Torrents (on the basis that I've already paid for it with my Sky subscription -- I always skip through the ads).

They do have a new model. It's called taking the shows off of cable unless the cable companies give them more money. And when they pull the content, Congress steps in and forces the cable companies to pay more.

That means we pay more. Not to mention there were never supposed to be ads on cable anyway, that's why you pay the monthly subscription. Just 2-13 was supposed to have them (the broadcast stations.)

Even $0.99 per episode is too much. That's $16 a season. The cable companies are paying roughly $1.50-$2.00 per subscriber for a network (like ABC has Disney, ESPN, etc. and Scripps was Food Network and HGTV.....about $40million per year), not just a show--according to Cablevision's anti-Scripps ads. Both ABC and Scripps were looking for 100% and 20% increases in their payments from Cablevision, respectively.

IMO, they cannot change this model to a pay per show model. It's too cumbersome. A network based subscription would be smarter. For example, put ESPN up on iTunes for the year at $50. Put ABC (and the others) on there for $30 year. If they only get $2 on average per subscriber on the cable networks, that's $24 a year per subscriber. So put the networks on for that price, and let people really show them how they are interested in their programming. I know I'd pay four networks- Food Network, Nick Jr, ESPN and Fox. That's it. I pay $40 a month for that now, might as well cut it to $140 a year. Leave all the commercials and everything in tact, I say, just change it to an internet stream instead of a cable box stream.

The per show thing is total BS and a complete ripoff. They have never gotten these ludicrous prices for their content, why let them start now?

FACT: iPad can display 16:9 720p H.264 content at 1024x576 natively. This is not HD.

When NHK first developed the HD spec there were two key criteria:

The display resolution has sufficient pixel density that a person with 20/20 vision would no longer see pixel structure. This is 60 pixels per degree (PPD) based on human visual acuity.

The display size was sufficiently large to provide the same immersive effects of cinema. This was determined to be 30 degrees of horizontal viewing angle (HVA). This is known as the induction effect. [1]

FACT: To get 30 degrees HVA at 60 PPD for the "true" HD effect you need a minimum of 1080p resolution.

This is roughly equivalent to sitting in the furthest seat in a movie theater that meets SMPTE or THX specs. More is better unless you like sitting way in back but no mainstream home theater product does this.

720p is part of the HD spec, is considered HD but doesn't actually meet the original objectives of replicating the high def theater experience in the home (aka "home theater").

Opinion: What this means on a practical level is any display that isn't at least 1080p is simply some level of compromise to the minimal requirements for high def viewing.

To get 60 PPD (aka full HD) density you need to sit 2.37 feet away (16:9)
To get the 30 degrees HVA you need to sit no more than 1.31 feet away.

Like all other displays that does not meet the 1080p resolution the iPad cannot meet both 60 PPD and 30 degrees HVA. This includes 720p HDTVs and any other 720p class slate.

PROBABLE FACT: There are no currently produced or announced 10" slates that can natively reproduce "real" HD at 60 PPD and 30 degrees HVA.

I say probable because while I'm not even sure anyone mass produces a 10" panel that is 1920x1080 res or higher and I would have remembered anyone spec'ing a natively 1080p slate at CES this year (there are some that output 1080p but not natively show it) I'm not 100% certain.

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me but at best I'm saying no 10" slate does better than slightly higher than 720p at 1366x768. And those are probably 11.1" panels.

Factoid: Most folks sit about 8+ feet from a 50" 1080p TV which results in a 14.55 degree HVA at 73 PPD.

I would list this as a fact except I can't find the damn study again to list as a reference. This article says 10' but there was an Italian study by one of their major national TV stations that stated around 8'. It'll vary by country (and the average home size in that country) but 8' is what I recall to be on the lower end of the spectrum.

Anything above 60 PPD you can't generally see unless your vision is above 20/20. This is NOT HD because you're sitting too far away to get the induction effect. Most folks with HDTVs are missing out on the real home theater experience.

Remember that to get 60 PPD you need to be 2.37 feet from the iPad. The HVA at that distance is 16.91 degrees at 60 PPD. 16.91 is bigger than 14.55.

CONCLUSION: At the optimal 2.37 foot viewing distance for the iPad it appears larger than a 50" 1080p HDTV at the normal 8+ foot TV viewing distance and has the same usable resolution for people with 20/20 vision.

There is some debate on whether 60PPD is a sufficient minimum for 20/20 vision but that's the current spec.

Those are the facts, probable facts and the analysis based on that data. For all intents and purposes the iPad is what most folks consider to be a HD experience. That most folks aren't really getting a HD experience is something only videophiles bicker (or snicker) about.

It's the typical amount most people in the US watch after they come home from work, it's a lot more on the weekends of course, the kids watching cartoons etc. all morning.

Perhaps in other countries the quality and quantity of shows isn't all that great, which leads people to do other things or perhaps they have to work more when they get home because people don't have things like like wash machines, dishwashers, robovac's etc.

FACT: iPad can display 16:9 720p H.264 content at 1024x576 natively. This is not HD.

When NHK first developed the HD spec there were two key criteria:

The display resolution has sufficient pixel density that a person with 20/20 vision would no longer see pixel structure. This is 60 pixels per degree (PPD) based on human visual acuity.

The display size was sufficiently large to provide the same immersive effects of cinema. This was determined to be 30 degrees of horizontal viewing angle (HVA). This is known as the induction effect. [1]

FACT: To get 30 degrees HVA at 60 PPD for the "true" HD effect you need a minimum of 1080p resolution.

This is roughly equivalent to sitting in the furthest seat in a movie theater that meets SMPTE or THX specs. More is better unless you like sitting way in back but no mainstream home theater product does this.

720p is part of the HD spec, is considered HD but doesn't actually meet the original objectives of replicating the high def theater experience in the home (aka "home theater").

Opinion: What this means on a practical level is any display that isn't at least 1080p is simply some level of compromise to the minimal requirements for high def viewing.

To get 60 PPD (aka full HD) density you need to sit 2.37 feet away (16:9)
To get the 30 degrees HVA you need to sit no more than 1.31 feet away.

Like all other displays that does not meet the 1080p resolution the iPad cannot meet both 60 PPD and 30 degrees HVA. This includes 720p HDTVs and any other 720p class slate.

PROBABLE FACT: There are no currently produced or announced 10" slates that can natively reproduce "real" HD at 60 PPD and 30 degrees HVA.

I say probable because while I'm not even sure anyone mass produces a 10" panel that is 1920x1080 res or higher and I would have remembered anyone spec'ing a natively 1080p slate at CES this year (there are some that output 1080p but not natively show it) I'm not 100% certain.

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me but at best I'm saying no 10" slate does better than slightly higher than 720p at 1366x768. And those are probably 11.1" panels.

Factoid: Most folks sit about 8+ feet from a 50" 1080p TV which results in a 14.55 degree HVA at 73 PPD.

I would list this as a fact except I can't find the damn study again to list as a reference. This article says 10' but there was an Italian study by one of their major national TV stations that stated around 8'. It'll vary by country (and the average home size in that country) but 8' is what I recall to be on the lower end of the spectrum.

Anything above 60 PPD you can't generally see unless your vision is above 20/20. This is NOT HD because you're sitting too far away to get the induction effect. Most folks with HDTVs are missing out on the real home theater experience.

Remember that to get 60 PPD you need to be 2.37 feet from the iPad. The HVA at that distance is 16.91 degrees at 60 PPD. 16.91 is bigger than 14.55.

CONCLUSION: At the optimal 2.37 foot viewing distance for the iPad it appears larger than a 50" 1080p HDTV at the normal 8+ foot TV viewing distance and has the same usable resolution for people with 20/20 vision.

There is some debate on whether 60PPD is a sufficient minimum for 20/20 vision but that's the current spec.

Those are the facts, probable facts and the analysis based on that data. For all intents and purposes the iPad is what most folks consider to be a HD experience. That most folks aren't really getting a HD experience is something only videophiles bicker (or snicker) about.

A little fact that many people might not know about the 'online Netflix' service....

They (Netflix) did NOT go to the studios to get permission to stream the movies that they currently stream... So how on earth are that able to stream them?!?!!? Simple, they get (sublicense) the rights from Starz (a premium movie channel) that had an interesting condition in many of their studio contracts that allowed them to sell redistribution rights to other parties...

I'm not sure what the initial reason for this clause since it seems like its a pretty major concession on behalf of the studios BUT it seems like the Starz loophole is quickly becoming a noose for Netflix Streaming...

Just a random news items that came up when I googled netflix streaming starz...

Actually, you're right and you're wrong. HD content does not have to be widescreen aspect ratio. 16:9 is not an absolute requirement of the ATSC spec. For instance, would you argue that the Blu-ray releases of the original Star Trek series aren't HD because they're only 4:3? Theoretically, a 720p version of that would be 960x720, which the iPad can easily handle. Also, I'd bet that the iPad can zoom the image to fill the screen vertically, just like the iPhone, a suspicion the product shots featuring the Star Trek movie seems to confirm. So it would still be 720p, even if it's cropped.

Actually, you're right and you're wrong. HD content does not have to be widescreen aspect ratio. 16:9 is not an absolute requirement of the ATSC spec.

I did not say that HD had to be 16:9 but that the iPad will display 16:9 content at 1024x576. I didn't go into all the other aspect ratios either like 2.39:1. The post was long enough.

Quote:

For instance, would you argue that the Blu-ray releases of the original Star Trek series aren't HD because they're only 4:3?

4:3 (and 3:2 for that matter) content is pillarboxed. So no, you actually wouldn't get the induction effect because you don't have quite the same level of head and eye movements at 60 PPD. The HVA is slightly too low. For 2.39:1 and 1.85:1 you do.

Quote:

Theoretically, a 720p version of that would be 960x720, which the iPad can easily handle. Also, I'd bet that the iPad can zoom the image to fill the screen vertically, just like the iPhone, a suspicion the product shots featuring the Star Trek movie seems to confirm. So it would still be 720p, even if it's cropped.

And 720p still doesn't meet the objectives of replicating a theater like immersive experience. Which is just fine except for those folks trying to denigrate the iPad as not providing that HD theater like experience that requires 1080p.

TV shows are rarely rewatched. People only buy seasons to watch for the first time. Rewatching is more of a movie thing anyway.

My family and I rewatch seasons of TV shows all the time. Buffy, Angel, Firefly, X-Files, Stargates, Star Treks, Friends, Smallville, Futurama, Bones, House, Psych, Mentalist, Castle, and those are only the ones I can think of without putting in any effort to recall our extensive collection.

Understandably, my family and I are probably the exception and not the rule. I understand that a lot of people only watch some things once, a lot of people don't care if something is in HD or SD, some people want whole seasons and others want specific episodes, some want to own and others want to stream.

The great thing about iTunes and other digital services is we can have all these options to tailor to different types of people. Sure, it's complicated, but it is doable.

Hulu works well with Standard Definition quality and with commercials for offer a free service. It is great when you just happen to miss an episode because your DVR freaked out.

Itunes works well because I can buy SD or HD episodes if I started watching a season late and I want to see how it started, assume those episodes aren't on Hulu anymore.

I like buying DVDs because I like to hold onto something that I can play pretty much anywhere on anything and not have to worry about if the device is Apple, or wonder if I have enough storage, or if I have backups in the event my harddrive fails.

Ideally, for me, I'd like a subscription from Apple where I can download and watch HD shows on my computer, iPod, or AppleTV (which I'd purchase if they did have a subscription service). If I really like a show at that point, or if I know i'm going to buy it later, I'd love an option to purchase a season and then burn it to either DVD or BluRay to backup and/or play via my PS3.

TV shows are rarely rewatched. People only buy seasons to watch for the first time. Rewatching is more of a movie thing anyway.

Reruns...
As most of what is on TV today is reruns I would say that TV is the most rewatched media there is. Granted most people do not go out and look for the reruns (unless that are looking for something they missed) but they would not necessarily turn the channel when a rerun does come on.

I suppose I should have included a nice diagram highlighting that the iPad is actually bigger than a 50" screen at those stated distances to be complete.

You're much too focused on PPD and resolution. The size of image is much more important, which is why most people, despite 52" or larger screens, still don't have true "home theater." Sorry, but even if the iPad had full 1080p resolution, I wouldn't consider holding it at arms length (as you suggested) or even a foot away as an immersive, theater-like experience.

It's interesting how people constantly complained that netbooks with their 10" screens were too small to really enjoy movies on (despite the fact that they actually have 16:9 widescreen aspect ratios) and now they are completely accepting of the iPad for the same purpose. I doubt very much that an HD movie on an iPad will look significantly better than even an SD movie on my Wind (which nevertheless plays back 720p just fine, if downsized). The Wind, like any 10" netbook, has exactly the same horizontal resolution as well as LED backlighting just like the iPad and because of the screen proportions, actually provides a physically wider image than the iPad does. Because it's the same horizontal resolution, logically, a 720p movie will display with the same vertical resolution, but the 576-pixel high image will almost perfectly fit the 600-pixel high screen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmz

Yes, thanks, more evidence that Netflix (like Hulu) will not be the same thing it is today by the end of Calendar 2010.

Movie and TV Studios want ultimate control and they're jockeying for it this year.

That makes no sense. Studios don't have to jockey for control of Hulu. They own Hulu lock, stock and barrel.